Contract terms override extra cartage claims where an arbitral award departs from express pricing clauses.

An arbitral award granting extra cartage for stone procurement was examined against an express contract clause stating that quoted rates were inclusive of all leads, regardless of source, and that quarry closure would not justify revision of rates. The court noted that Section 34(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act permits interference where an award departs from the contract or is patently illegal. As no material showed that the employer had insisted on sourcing from the specified quarry, the extra cartage claim was treated as contrary to the contract and unsupported by evidence.

---

---

Issues: Whether the arbitral award granting extra cartage for procurement of stone from Nooh, Haryana, could be sustained when the contract contained a clause making the quoted rates inclusive of all leads irrespective of source and no material established that the employer had insisted on procurement from that quarry.

Analysis: Section 34(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 permits interference where an award is contrary to the terms of the contract or is patently illegal. The contract clause in question provided that collection and stacking of material would include all leads, that quoted rates would remain effective irrespective of the source of material so long as specifications were met, and that closure of a quarry would not justify revision of rates. The award and the appellate judgment failed to deal with this clause. On the evidence, there was no material to show that the employer had required the contractor to bring the material only from Nooh. In these circumstances, granting extra cartage amounted to departure from the contract and a clear error on the face of the award.

Conclusion: The claim for extra cartage could not be upheld and the award on Claim Nos. 1 to 3 and Additional Claim Nos. 1 to 3 was liable to be set aside.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, and the order of the Division Bench was set aside while the decision of the learned single Judge was restored insofar as the disputed cartage claims were concerned.

Ratio Decidendi: An arbitral award that grants relief contrary to an express contractual term and without evidentiary support is patently illegal and liable to be interfered with under Section 34(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

---